https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893 Contractual arbitration and jurisdiction clauses were construed together to hold that New Delhi remained the agreed seat and that the Delhi courts had exclusive territorial jurisdiction, despite blanks in the clauses. Section 18 of the MSME Act was treated as governing the MSME Council's conciliation and arbitration process by reference to the supplier's location, but not as displacing the parties' chosen seat or forum selection clause; the Act did not oust the Delhi court's jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge. Pending writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court did not bar the Section 34 petition, as they concerned the Council proceedings and did not determine the court's jurisdiction. The jurisdictional ruling was set aside and the matter restored for decision on merits. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893 Contractual arbitration and jurisdiction clauses were construed together to hold that New Delhi remained the agreed seat and that the Delhi courts had exclusive territorial jurisdiction, despite blanks in the clauses. Section 18 of the MSME Act was treated as governing the MSME Council's conciliation and arbitration process by reference to the supplier's location, but not as displacing the parties' chosen seat or forum selection clause; the Act did not oust the Delhi court's jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge. Pending writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court did not bar the Section 34 petition, as they concerned the Council proceedings and did not determine the court's jurisdiction. The jurisdictional ruling was set aside and the matter restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893